{{tnr}}The '''Arizona State Trust Lands Question''', also known as '''Proposition 110''', or '''SCR 1047''', was on the [[Arizona 2010 ballot measures|November 2, 2010]] ballot in the state of [[Arizona]] as a {{lrcafull}}. The measure would authorize the exchange of state trust lands in order to protect military installations and was sponsored by [[John Nelson]]. According to the measure, the legislature must provide a process for exchanging those lands. The measure was '''defeated'''.{{defeated}}

+

{{Property}}{{tnr}}{{AZConstitution}}The '''Arizona State Trust Lands Question''', also known as '''Proposition 110''', or '''SCR 1047''', was on the [[Arizona 2010 ballot measures|November 2, 2010]] ballot in the state of [[Arizona]] as a {{lrcafull}}. It was '''defeated'''.

+

+

The measure was proposed to authorize the exchange of state trust lands in order to protect military installations and was sponsored by [[John Nelson]]. According to the previous law at the time, the legislature was required provide a process for exchanging those lands.

The proposal was filed by the Office of the Secretary of State on [[BC2010#April|April 26, 2010]] which was during the forty-ninth legislature. The bill was first introduced to the [[Arizona State Senate]] on [[BC2010#February|February 2, 2010]].<ref> [http://www.azleg.gov/MembersPage.asp?Member_ID=104&legislature=49 ''Arizona Legislature'', "John Nelson"]</ref><ref name=text> [http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/scr1047s.htm ''Arizona Legislature'', "Senate Concurrent Resolution 1047"]</ref>

The proposal was filed by the Office of the Secretary of State on [[BC2010#April|April 26, 2010]] which was during the forty-ninth legislature. The bill was first introduced to the [[Arizona State Senate]] on [[BC2010#February|February 2, 2010]].<ref> [http://www.azleg.gov/MembersPage.asp?Member_ID=104&legislature=49 ''Arizona Legislature'', "John Nelson"]</ref><ref name=text> [http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/scr1047s.htm ''Arizona Legislature'', "Senate Concurrent Resolution 1047"]</ref>

Line 5:

Line 7:

==Election results==

==Election results==

:: ''See also: [[2010 ballot measure election results]]''

:: ''See also: [[2010 ballot measure election results]]''

−

Official election results for the measure follow:

+

Official election results for the measure were:

−

{{Outcome

+

{{Short outcome

| title = Proposition 110 (State Trust Lands)

| title = Proposition 110 (State Trust Lands)

| yes = 792,394

| yes = 792,394

Line 23:

Line 25:

==Text of measure==

==Text of measure==

===Ballot title===

===Ballot title===

−

The ballot title that [[Arizona]] voters will see read as follows:<ref name=pamphlet/>

+

The ballot title that [[Arizona]] voters saw read as follows:<ref name=pamphlet/>

−

+

{{Quote|

A "yes" vote shall have the effect of authorizing the sale or lease of state trust land without auction or advertisement in order to protect military installations and operations. It will also allow voter-approved exchanges of state trust land after public notice and hearing if the exchange is related to either protecting military facilities or for land management purposes.

A "yes" vote shall have the effect of authorizing the sale or lease of state trust land without auction or advertisement in order to protect military installations and operations. It will also allow voter-approved exchanges of state trust land after public notice and hearing if the exchange is related to either protecting military facilities or for land management purposes.

−

A "no" vote shall have the effect of retaining current law regarding the sale, lease and exchange of state trust land.

+

A "no" vote shall have the effect of retaining current law regarding the sale, lease and exchange of state trust land.}}

+

===Short title===

===Short title===

The short title of the measure, according to the [[Arizona Secretary of State]]'s website, read as follows:<ref> [http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/General/BallotMeasures.htm ''Arizona Secretary of State'', "2010 General Election:Ballot measures"]</ref>

The short title of the measure, according to the [[Arizona Secretary of State]]'s website, read as follows:<ref> [http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/General/BallotMeasures.htm ''Arizona Secretary of State'', "2010 General Election:Ballot measures"]</ref>

The measure was proposed to amend [[Article 10, Arizona Constitution#Section 3|Article X, Section 3]] and adding a new Section 12 to that same article.<ref name=text/>

+

The measure was proposed to amend [[Article 10, Arizona Constitution#Section 3|Article X, Section 3]] and add a new Section 12 to that same article.<ref name=text/>

==Support==

==Support==

===Supporters===

===Supporters===

−

* [http://www.azchamber.com/ The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry] announced their endorsement of the initiative on [[BC2010#June|June 25, 2010]], along with [[Arizona 2010 ballot measures|four other measures on the ballot.]]<ref> [http://tucsoncitizen.com/yadapolitics/2010/06/25/arizona-chamber-of-commerce-and-industry-endorses-five-ballot-measures/ ''Tuscon Citizen'', "Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry endorses five ballot measures", June 25, 2010]</ref>

+

* The [[Arizona Chamber of Commerce]] and Industry announced their endorsement of the initiative on [[BC2010#June|June 25, 2010]], along with [[Arizona 2010 ballot measures|four other measures on the ballot.]]<ref> [http://tucsoncitizen.com/yadapolitics/2010/06/25/arizona-chamber-of-commerce-and-industry-endorses-five-ballot-measures/ ''Tucson Citizen'', "Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry endorses five ballot measures," June 25, 2010]</ref>

−

* [[Arizona Governor]] [[Jan Brewer]] is a supporter of the measure.<ref name=brewer/>

+

* [[Governor of Arizona]] [[Jan Brewer]] was a supporter of the measure.<ref name=brewer/>

* Linda Turley-Hansen, syndicated columnist and former Phoenix TV anchor, advised a 'yes' vote on the measure in an editorial revealing her recommendations for all the propositions on the November ballot.<ref> [http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/opinion/article_3d4b7630-d326-11df-a1b7-001cc4c03286.html ''East Valley Tribune'', "Voters: Awaken and prepare for heavy-duty ballot propositions", October 10, 2010]</ref>

+

* Linda Turley-Hansen, syndicated columnist and former Phoenix TV anchor, advised a 'yes' vote on the measure in an editorial revealing her recommendations for all the propositions on the November ballot.<ref> [http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/opinion/article_3d4b7630-d326-11df-a1b7-001cc4c03286.html ''East Valley Tribune'', "Voters: Awaken and prepare for heavy-duty ballot propositions," October 10, 2010]</ref>

−

* The Pima County Democratic Party recommended a 'yes' vote on the measure.<ref> [http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2010/10/pcdp-ballot-measure-recommendations.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BlogForArizona+%28Blog+For+Arizona%29 ''Blog For Arizona'', "PCDP Ballot Measure Recommendations", Retrieved October 18, 2010]</ref>

+

* The Pima County Democratic Party recommended a 'yes' vote on the measure.<ref> [http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2010/10/pcdp-ballot-measure-recommendations.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BlogForArizona+%28Blog+For+Arizona%29 ''Blog For Arizona'', "PCDP Ballot Measure Recommendations," accessed October 18, 2010]</ref>

−

* [[Arizona State Senate|State Senator]] [[Ron Gould]] and [[Arizona House of Representatives|State Representative]] [[Nancy G. McLain]] both voiced their support for the measure.<ref> [http://www.kingmandailyminer.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubsectionID=1&ArticleID=40650 ''Kingman Daily Miner'', "Officials sound off on upcoming propositions", October 14, 2010]</ref>

+

* [[Arizona State Senate|State Senator]] [[Ron Gould]] and [[Arizona House of Representatives|State Representative]] [[Nancy G. McLain]] both voiced their support for the measure.<ref> [http://www.kingmandailyminer.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubsectionID=1&ArticleID=40650 ''Kingman Daily Miner'', "Officials sound off on upcoming propositions," October 14, 2010]</ref>

−

* The Tuscon Chamber of Commerce recommended a 'yes' vote on the measure in an editorial.<ref> [http://www.azbiz.com/articles/2010/10/22/news/doc4cc1f1a7626ad036936486.txt ''Inside Tuscon Business'', "Pro-business endorsements from Tucson chamber of commerce", October 22, 2010]</ref>

+

* The [[Tucson Chamber of Commerce]] recommended a 'yes' vote on the measure in an editorial.<ref> [http://www.azbiz.com/articles/2010/10/22/news/doc4cc1f1a7626ad036936486.txt ''Inside Tucson Business'', "Pro-business endorsements from Tucson chamber of commerce," October 22, 2010]</ref>

===Arguments===

===Arguments===

−

The following arguments have been made in support of the measure:<ref name=arguments> [http://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/publications-reports/2010-proposition-110-2013-state-trust-lands ''Morrison Institute'', "Understanding Arizona’s Propositions: Prop 110", Retrieved September 3, 2010]</ref>

+

The following arguments were made in support of the measure:<ref name=arguments> [http://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/publications-reports/2010-proposition-110-2013-state-trust-lands ''Morrison Institute'', "Understanding Arizona’s Propositions: Prop 110," accessed September 3, 2010]</ref>

* The measure would shield any future overtaking of military bases in the state, such as Luke Air Force Base. The passage of the measure would protect those bases.

* The measure would shield any future overtaking of military bases in the state, such as Luke Air Force Base. The passage of the measure would protect those bases.

−

* The measure would repeal the ban against land exchanges that is currently in place. Supporters stated that the process of land exchanges have worked in previous years, and the measure would allow the state to do so for the first time since 1990

+

* The measure would repeal the ban against land exchanges that was in place. Supporters stated that the process of land exchanges worked in previous years, and the measure would allow the state to do so for the first time since 1990.

−

* If the measure is passed, it would make sure that land exchanges have to include analyses that include fiscal impact, public hearings and approval of voters.

+

* If the measure passed, it would make sure that land exchanges have to include analyses that include fiscal impact, public hearings and approval of voters.

<div style="float:right;">{{#ev:youtube|N6KjyOqWLN8|200}}</div>

<div style="float:right;">{{#ev:youtube|N6KjyOqWLN8|200}}</div>

−

* [[Arizona State Senate|Senator]] [[John Nelson]] stated about the measure, "The military income is inflation-proof. It's recession-proof. It comes in consistently and constantly and to me it's a good investment. If we can't buy the land to help them, then we ought to find other ways of preserving the bases."<ref name=public> [http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/16009-1 ''Public News Service'', "AZ Trust Lands Proposition Would Benefit Conservation, Military", September 16, 2010]</ref>

+

* [[Arizona State Senate|Senator]] [[John Nelson]] stated about the measure, "The military income is inflation-proof. It's recession-proof. It comes in consistently and constantly and to me it's a good investment. If we can't buy the land to help them, then we ought to find other ways of preserving the bases."<ref name=public> [http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/16009-1 ''Public News Service'', "AZ Trust Lands Proposition Would Benefit Conservation, Military," September 16, 2010]</ref>

* Sandy Bahr, director of the Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter, commented on the measure, arguing, "None of us want to see that parcel of land developed. This would provide a mechanism for conserving that land, and likewise, lands up at the headwaters of the Verde River."<ref name=public/>

* Sandy Bahr, director of the Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter, commented on the measure, arguing, "None of us want to see that parcel of land developed. This would provide a mechanism for conserving that land, and likewise, lands up at the headwaters of the Verde River."<ref name=public/>

Line 66:

Line 70:

===Arguments===

===Arguments===

−

The following arguments have been made in opposition to the measure:<ref name=arguments/>

+

The following arguments were made in opposition to the measure:<ref name=arguments/>

−

* Opponents state that the measure would not bring any change to the process.

+

* Opponents stated that the measure would not bring any change to the process.

−

* The measure, according to opponents, doesn't bode well for open space preservation.

+

* The measure, according to opponents, didn't bode well for open space preservation.

−

* The measure, because it sets up an exchange process that needs a public vote, would hurt future reform efforts.

+

* The measure, because it set up an exchange process that needed a public vote, would hurt future reform efforts.

A [[Arizona Legislature|legislative council]] analysis performed on the measure and published in the [[Arizona Secretary of State]]'s Publicity Pamphlet, impartially stated the following, in terms of what the measure would do if enacted:<ref name=pamphlet> [http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/Info/PubPamphlet/english/Prop110.htm ''Arizona Secretary of State'', "Publicity Pamphlet", Retrieved September 21, 2010]</ref>

+

A [[Arizona Legislature|legislative council]] analysis performed on the measure and published in the [[Arizona Secretary of State]]'s Publicity Pamphlet, impartially stated the following, in terms of what the measure would do if enacted:<ref name=pamphlet> [http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/Info/PubPamphlet/english/Prop110.htm ''Arizona Secretary of State'', "Publicity Pamphlet," accessed September 21, 2010]</ref>

−

: ''In 1910, the United States Congress passed the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act, allowing Arizona to become a state. The Enabling Act granted Arizona approximately 10.9 million acres of land, referred to as "state trust land". The state land trust is intended to produce revenue for various public institutions (schools, colleges, prisons, etc.). The state can lease or sell trust land, and the natural products (timber, minerals, etc.) of the land, only to the "highest and best bidder" at public auction.''

+

: ''In 1910, the United States Congress passed the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act, allowing Arizona to become a state. The Enabling Act granted Arizona approximately 10.9 million acres of land, referred to as "state trust land."The state land trust is intended to produce revenue for various public institutions (schools, colleges, prisons, etc.). The state can lease or sell trust land, and the natural products (timber, minerals, etc.) of the land, only to the "highest and best bidder" at public auction.''

:''In 1936, Congress amended the Enabling Act to give Arizona more flexibility in managing and disposing of trust land by allowing the state to exchange trust land for other public or private lands. Arizona did not amend its state Constitution to incorporate that authority for land exchanges. The Arizona Supreme Court has determined that without amending the Arizona Constitution the state cannot conduct land exchanges.''

:''In 1936, Congress amended the Enabling Act to give Arizona more flexibility in managing and disposing of trust land by allowing the state to exchange trust land for other public or private lands. Arizona did not amend its state Constitution to incorporate that authority for land exchanges. The Arizona Supreme Court has determined that without amending the Arizona Constitution the state cannot conduct land exchanges.''

Line 86:

Line 101:

===Support===

===Support===

−

* The '''Arizona Daily Star''' supports Proposition 110, saying, "Would amend the constitution to require that state trust lands be sold or exchanged in a way that protects military installations from potential incompatible uses nearby."<ref>[http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_cb4ba435-3080-5e66-8859-b38170d64573.html ''Arizona Daily Star'', "The Star's recommendations on state, local propositions", October 28, 2010]</ref>

+

* The '''Arizona Daily Star''' supported Proposition 110, saying, "Would amend the constitution to require that state trust lands be sold or exchanged in a way that protects military installations from potential incompatible uses nearby."<ref>[http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_cb4ba435-3080-5e66-8859-b38170d64573.html ''Arizona Daily Star'', "The Star's recommendations on state, local propositions," October 28, 2010]</ref>

−

* The '''East Valley Tribune''' recommendeds a 'yes' vote on the measure, stating, "To avoid potential abuse or sweetheart deals to land developers, safeguards are included that require two detailed independent appraisals of the exchange, a public hearing and, finally, voter approval of any deal."<ref> [http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/opinion/article_88acf684-de30-11df-ac94-001cc4c002e0.html ''East Valley Tribune'', "Endorsements: Ballot propositions", October 24, 2010]</ref>

+

* The '''East Valley Tribune''' recommended a 'yes' vote on the measure, stating, "To avoid potential abuse or sweetheart deals to land developers, safeguards are included that require two detailed independent appraisals of the exchange, a public hearing and, finally, voter approval of any deal."<ref> [http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/opinion/article_88acf684-de30-11df-ac94-001cc4c002e0.html ''East Valley Tribune'', "Endorsements: Ballot propositions," October 24, 2010]</ref>

−

* The '''Yuma Sun''' endorses Proposition 110, saying, "The reason the ability to trade land is important, beyond increasing management efficiency, is that this can be used to help protect military facilities around the state and the ranges that they use for training, as well as for conservation purposes. The bases are a major economic benefit to our state."<ref>[http://www.yumasun.com/opinion/land-64639-bases-state.html ''Yuma Sun'', "Proposition 110 provides method to protect bases", October 13, 2010]</ref>

+

* The '''Yuma Sun''' endorsed Proposition 110, saying, "The reason the ability to trade land is important, beyond increasing management efficiency, is that this can be used to help protect military facilities around the state and the ranges that they use for training, as well as for conservation purposes. The bases are a major economic benefit to our state."<ref>[http://www.yumasun.com/opinion/land-64639-bases-state.html ''Yuma Sun'', "Proposition 110 provides method to protect bases," October 13, 2010]</ref>

−

* '''The Arizona Republic''' is in support, stating, "Voters can say "yes" with confidence to this ballot measure, which is so well drafted that it has support from all sides, including business interests, education groups and conservation advocates who staunchly opposed previous land-exchange proposals."<ref> [http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2010/10/07/20101007thur2-07.html ''Arizona Republic'', "Prop. 301 is a loser; vote 'yes' on Prop. 110", October 7, 2010]</ref>

+

* '''The Arizona Republic''' was in support, stating, "Voters can say "yes" with confidence to this ballot measure, which is so well drafted that it has support from all sides, including business interests, education groups and conservation advocates who staunchly opposed previous land-exchange proposals."<ref> [http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2010/10/07/20101007thur2-07.html ''Arizona Republic'', "Prop. 301 is a loser; vote 'yes' on Prop. 110," October 7, 2010]</ref>

−

* '''The Desert Lamp''' stated in an editorial about the measure: "The lack of a public auction is certainly troubling, as it’s not hard to how such an opaque approach could create an incentive for politicians to hatch backdoor deals, but, unlike certain universities whose names I shall not mention, the final say ultimately belongs to the voters whom the land is meant to benefit."<ref> [http://www.desertlamp.com/?p=8196 ''Desert Lamp'', "The Desert Lamp’s Ballot Proposition Endorsements", October 20, 2010]</ref>

+

* '''The Desert Lamp''' stated in an editorial about the measure: "The lack of a public auction is certainly troubling, as it’s not hard to how such an opaque approach could create an incentive for politicians to hatch backdoor deals, but, unlike certain universities whose names I shall not mention, the final say ultimately belongs to the voters whom the land is meant to benefit."<ref> [http://www.desertlamp.com/?p=8196 ''Desert Lamp'', "The Desert Lamp’s Ballot Proposition Endorsements," October 20, 2010]</ref>

===Opposition===

===Opposition===

−

* '''Goldwater State''' is against the measure, stating, "Passage of Proposition 110 is a giveaway to developers, the military, and those who make money off the military's presence at the expense of everyone else. Vote No!"<ref> [http://goldwaterstate.blogspot.com/2010/11/ballot-question-summaries-and.html ''Goldwater State'', "Ballot question summaries and recommendations part 1: Propositions 106-113, the Constitutional amendments", November 1, 2010]</ref>

+

* '''Goldwater State''' was against the measure, stating, "Passage of Proposition 110 is a giveaway to developers, the military, and those who make money off the military's presence at the expense of everyone else. Vote No!"<ref> [http://goldwaterstate.blogspot.com/2010/11/ballot-question-summaries-and.html ''Goldwater State'', "Ballot question summaries and recommendations part 1: Propositions 106-113, the Constitutional amendments," November 1, 2010]</ref>

The measure was proposed to authorize the exchange of state trust lands in order to protect military installations and was sponsored by John Nelson. According to the previous law at the time, the legislature was required provide a process for exchanging those lands.

Text of measure

Ballot title

A "yes" vote shall have the effect of authorizing the sale or lease of state trust land without auction or advertisement in order to protect military installations and operations. It will also allow voter-approved exchanges of state trust land after public notice and hearing if the exchange is related to either protecting military facilities or for land management purposes.

A "no" vote shall have the effect of retaining current law regarding the sale, lease and exchange of state trust land.[4]

Linda Turley-Hansen, syndicated columnist and former Phoenix TV anchor, advised a 'yes' vote on the measure in an editorial revealing her recommendations for all the propositions on the November ballot.[8]

The Pima County Democratic Party recommended a 'yes' vote on the measure.[9]

Arguments

The measure would shield any future overtaking of military bases in the state, such as Luke Air Force Base. The passage of the measure would protect those bases.

The measure would repeal the ban against land exchanges that was in place. Supporters stated that the process of land exchanges worked in previous years, and the measure would allow the state to do so for the first time since 1990.

If the measure passed, it would make sure that land exchanges have to include analyses that include fiscal impact, public hearings and approval of voters.

SenatorJohn Nelson stated about the measure, "The military income is inflation-proof. It's recession-proof. It comes in consistently and constantly and to me it's a good investment. If we can't buy the land to help them, then we ought to find other ways of preserving the bases."[13]

Sandy Bahr, director of the Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter, commented on the measure, arguing, "None of us want to see that parcel of land developed. This would provide a mechanism for conserving that land, and likewise, lands up at the headwaters of the Verde River."[13]

In 1910, the United States Congress passed the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act, allowing Arizona to become a state. The Enabling Act granted Arizona approximately 10.9 million acres of land, referred to as "state trust land."The state land trust is intended to produce revenue for various public institutions (schools, colleges, prisons, etc.). The state can lease or sell trust land, and the natural products (timber, minerals, etc.) of the land, only to the "highest and best bidder" at public auction.

In 1936, Congress amended the Enabling Act to give Arizona more flexibility in managing and disposing of trust land by allowing the state to exchange trust land for other public or private lands. Arizona did not amend its state Constitution to incorporate that authority for land exchanges. The Arizona Supreme Court has determined that without amending the Arizona Constitution the state cannot conduct land exchanges.

Proposition 110 would amend the Arizona Constitution to allow the state to dispose of (for example, sell or lease) state trust land or interests in trust land or to place restrictions on interests or rights in trust lands, without advertisement or auction, in order to avoid incompatible use of the trust land that would interfere with military installations, facilities, ranges, airspace or operations or to enable military combat readiness and allow full spectrum test and training operations.

Proposition 110 would also amend the Arizona Constitution to allow the state to exchange state trust land for other public land. The exchange must be in the best interest of the state land trust. The purpose of the exchange must be to either assist in preserving and protecting military facilities in this state from encroaching development or for the proper management, protection or public use of state lands. There must be two independent appraisals that show that the true value of the land the state receives in the exchange is equal to or greater than the true value of the trust land the state conveys. There must also be two independent analyses that detail the income to the state land trust before and the projected income to the trust after the exchange, the financial impact of the exchange on each county, city, town and school district in which the lands are located, the physical, economic and natural resource impacts of the exchange on the local community and the impacts on local land uses and land use plans. A detailed public notice of a proposed exchange must be given, public hearings must be held and an opportunity for public comment must be given. A proposed exchange is not effective unless it is approved by the voters at a statewide November general election.

Media endorsements

Support

The Arizona Daily Star supported Proposition 110, saying, "Would amend the constitution to require that state trust lands be sold or exchanged in a way that protects military installations from potential incompatible uses nearby."[14]

The East Valley Tribune recommended a 'yes' vote on the measure, stating, "To avoid potential abuse or sweetheart deals to land developers, safeguards are included that require two detailed independent appraisals of the exchange, a public hearing and, finally, voter approval of any deal."[15]

The Yuma Sun endorsed Proposition 110, saying, "The reason the ability to trade land is important, beyond increasing management efficiency, is that this can be used to help protect military facilities around the state and the ranges that they use for training, as well as for conservation purposes. The bases are a major economic benefit to our state."[16]

The Arizona Republic was in support, stating, "Voters can say "yes" with confidence to this ballot measure, which is so well drafted that it has support from all sides, including business interests, education groups and conservation advocates who staunchly opposed previous land-exchange proposals."[17]

The Desert Lamp stated in an editorial about the measure: "The lack of a public auction is certainly troubling, as it’s not hard to how such an opaque approach could create an incentive for politicians to hatch backdoor deals, but, unlike certain universities whose names I shall not mention, the final say ultimately belongs to the voters whom the land is meant to benefit."[18]

Opposition

Goldwater State was against the measure, stating, "Passage of Proposition 110 is a giveaway to developers, the military, and those who make money off the military's presence at the expense of everyone else. Vote No!"[19]